logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.04.07 2015가합17833
서비스표권침해금지 등
Text

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Facts of premise;

A. The Plaintiff’s franchise business and business mark (hereinafter “instant franchise business”) began by using “C,” “C,” “C,” etc. as business marks from April 201.

A franchise store that concludes and operates a franchise agreement with the Plaintiff was called "C".

(b) The filing date of the Plaintiff’s “C” service mark registration: D/registration decision date: September 11, 2013: E designated service business: Lestop and restaurant business, etc. (Class 43)

C. The Plaintiff’s filing date of the registration of the “F” service mark (hereinafter “instant registered service mark”): G/registration decision date: February 12, 2015 / Registration date: H designated service business: Lestostostostostostostostos tostostos tostos tostos tostos tostos tostos

D. On April 30, 2012, the Defendant entered into a franchise agreement with the Plaintiff and the Defendant on April 30, 2012, and started the Ssty Specialized Store business after completing business registration with its trade name “Ccafeteria I” on May 25, 2012.

On February 26, 2014 and March 11, 2014, the Plaintiff had repeated proof to the effect that “the Defendant violated the obligations stipulated in the above franchise agreement, such as the sale of New York, and thus sought correction thereof.” On March 24, 2014, the Plaintiff sent a certification of the content of the title “the notice of the termination of the Ccafeteria I franchise agreement.”

On May 21, 2014, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a contract to terminate the said franchise agreement on April 27, 2014.

Article 5 (2) of the above termination contract provides that "the defendant shall remove the trade name, signboards, and other display materials used with the permission of use from the plaintiff and shall not infringe the scope of the trademark right owned by the plaintiff by modifying them."

E. On or after April 21, 2014, the Defendant’s trade name, the use of marks, and the Defendant’s business operation, on April 21, 2014, completed a report to correct the trade name and the name of business office at “C cafeteria I” from “J cafeteria I”.

The defendant.

arrow